CO-SurveyUSA: Tied race

[Supersonic]

A glimmer of good news for Romney in an otherwise bleak week.

[Sbane]

All right, let's use a little logic. Even using the active registration numbers there is only a R+2 advantage. If you use total registration, which is of course the logical thing to do, it evens up more or less. So why would there be a R+3 turnout? You guys do realize who the Republican nominee is, right? There won't be a groundswell for him, that's for sure. And while Democratic enthusiasm was low earlier in the year, things seem to have changed. I'm not saying they are more enthusiastic than Republicans, but the whole enthusiasm divide is a little overplayed. An even partisan turnout is pretty much what is likely to happen, considering that was the case even in 2010.

BTW guys could you please put your money where your mouth is and go on intrade and short sell Obama or buy Romney. I already think Obama is undervalued, but since there are a lot of people like you guys out there, I think prices could go even lower meaning more money for me.

http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/VoterRegNumbers/2012/August/VotersByPartyStatus.pdf

Active voter registration.

D: 739,778
R: 837,732
I: 728,794

D: 31.8%
R: 36%
I: 31.2%

Colorado active voters turnout was roughly 72% in the 2008 election. Colorado inactive voter turnout has ranged from 3-7% county by county in the subsequent elections. It's not a direct comparison, but it's what we have.

Why? Most inactives are gone or dead. It's silly to count them as equal with the actives.

Ok. Please go buy Romney on Intrade. Thanks.

[krazen1211]

All right, let's use a little logic. Even using the active registration numbers there is only a R+2 advantage. If you use total registration, which is of course the logical thing to do, it evens up more or less. So why would there be a R+3 turnout? You guys do realize who the Republican nominee is, right? There won't be a groundswell for him, that's for sure. And while Democratic enthusiasm was low earlier in the year, things seem to have changed. I'm not saying they are more enthusiastic than Republicans, but the whole enthusiasm divide is a little overplayed. An even partisan turnout is pretty much what is likely to happen, considering that was the case even in 2010.

BTW guys could you please put your money where your mouth is and go on intrade and short sell Obama or buy Romney. I already think Obama is undervalued, but since there are a lot of people like you guys out there, I think prices could go even lower meaning more money for me.

http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/VoterRegNumbers/2012/August/VotersByPartyStatus.pdf

Active voter registration.

D: 739,778
R: 837,732
I: 728,794

D: 31.8%
R: 36%
I: 31.2%

Colorado active voters turnout was roughly 72% in the 2008 election. Colorado inactive voter turnout has ranged from 3-7% county by county in the subsequent elections. It's not a direct comparison, but it's what we have.

Why? Most inactives are gone or dead. It's silly to count them as equal with the actives.

Ok. Please go buy Romney on Intrade. Thanks.

Sure. In the meantime I would suggest you go to math class.

[backtored]

Denver Post was less Obama friendly in 2008. CO is one of the states Dems generally overperform on election day. Polls had 2008 at 4-6 points and Obama won by 9 while every 2010 poll had Bennet losing. Lean D

I think Colorado is more of a tossup than Ohio. Obama could very well win Obio by 5 points, and only win Colorado by 3. I don't totally buy into the "College Students and Hispanics Are Pushing Colorado Left" meme. It's happening, but not nearly as fast as some think it is.

Dems always outperform the polls in CO and NV and there's no reason to believe it won't happen this time. Also, the pot amendment is going to motivate young people so their turnout will probably be up.

Check out the crosstabs.  In a head-to-head match-up, Romney actually has a narrow lead in Colorado among voters aged 18-29.

http://www.denverpost.com/nationalpolitics/ci_21543908/denver-post-presidential-poll-results-coming-at-noon

And the president's lead among Hispanics is only 21 points.

So even assuming the whole "Latino/young people invasion" theory, they're actually moving towards the GOP compared to past years.  Even if you throw Johnson into the mix, Obama and Romney are still tied.

Peel beneath the surface, and you've got some ugly crosstabs for the president in Colorado.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Check out the crosstabs.  In a head-to-head match-up, Romney actually has a narrow lead in Colorado among voters aged 18-29.

SurveyUSA has gone full Rasmussen.

[Sbane]

All right, let's use a little logic. Even using the active registration numbers there is only a R+2 advantage. If you use total registration, which is of course the logical thing to do, it evens up more or less. So why would there be a R+3 turnout? You guys do realize who the Republican nominee is, right? There won't be a groundswell for him, that's for sure. And while Democratic enthusiasm was low earlier in the year, things seem to have changed. I'm not saying they are more enthusiastic than Republicans, but the whole enthusiasm divide is a little overplayed. An even partisan turnout is pretty much what is likely to happen, considering that was the case even in 2010.

BTW guys could you please put your money where your mouth is and go on intrade and short sell Obama or buy Romney. I already think Obama is undervalued, but since there are a lot of people like you guys out there, I think prices could go even lower meaning more money for me.

http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/VoterRegNumbers/2012/August/VotersByPartyStatus.pdf

Active voter registration.

D: 739,778
R: 837,732
I: 728,794

D: 31.8%
R: 36%
I: 31.2%

Colorado active voters turnout was roughly 72% in the 2008 election. Colorado inactive voter turnout has ranged from 3-7% county by county in the subsequent elections. It's not a direct comparison, but it's what we have.

Why? Most inactives are gone or dead. It's silly to count them as equal with the actives.

Ok. Please go buy Romney on Intrade. Thanks.

Sure. In the meantime I would suggest you go to math class.

Well, you are of the opinion that 1/3rd of the Colorado electorate is either dead or has moved away. Not sure what sort of class you can go to in order to remedy that issue.

[krazen1211]

All right, let's use a little logic. Even using the active registration numbers there is only a R+2 advantage. If you use total registration, which is of course the logical thing to do, it evens up more or less. So why would there be a R+3 turnout? You guys do realize who the Republican nominee is, right? There won't be a groundswell for him, that's for sure. And while Democratic enthusiasm was low earlier in the year, things seem to have changed. I'm not saying they are more enthusiastic than Republicans, but the whole enthusiasm divide is a little overplayed. An even partisan turnout is pretty much what is likely to happen, considering that was the case even in 2010.

BTW guys could you please put your money where your mouth is and go on intrade and short sell Obama or buy Romney. I already think Obama is undervalued, but since there are a lot of people like you guys out there, I think prices could go even lower meaning more money for me.

http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/VoterRegNumbers/2012/August/VotersByPartyStatus.pdf

Active voter registration.

D: 739,778
R: 837,732
I: 728,794

D: 31.8%
R: 36%
I: 31.2%

Colorado active voters turnout was roughly 72% in the 2008 election. Colorado inactive voter turnout has ranged from 3-7% county by county in the subsequent elections. It's not a direct comparison, but it's what we have.

Why? Most inactives are gone or dead. It's silly to count them as equal with the actives.

Ok. Please go buy Romney on Intrade. Thanks.

Sure. In the meantime I would suggest you go to math class.

Well, you are of the opinion that 1/3rd of the Colorado electorate is either dead or has moved away. Not sure what sort of class you can go to in order to remedy that issue.

Nope, you might want to check reading class too.

For some reason, you have confused the statement 'most inactives are gone or dead' to 'all inactives are gone or dead', and calculated a figure based on that confusion.

It's quite amusing to see such from someone who claims to use a little logic.

[Sbane]

All right, let's use a little logic. Even using the active registration numbers there is only a R+2 advantage. If you use total registration, which is of course the logical thing to do, it evens up more or less. So why would there be a R+3 turnout? You guys do realize who the Republican nominee is, right? There won't be a groundswell for him, that's for sure. And while Democratic enthusiasm was low earlier in the year, things seem to have changed. I'm not saying they are more enthusiastic than Republicans, but the whole enthusiasm divide is a little overplayed. An even partisan turnout is pretty much what is likely to happen, considering that was the case even in 2010.

BTW guys could you please put your money where your mouth is and go on intrade and short sell Obama or buy Romney. I already think Obama is undervalued, but since there are a lot of people like you guys out there, I think prices could go even lower meaning more money for me.

http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/VoterRegNumbers/2012/August/VotersByPartyStatus.pdf

Active voter registration.

D: 739,778
R: 837,732
I: 728,794

D: 31.8%
R: 36%
I: 31.2%

Colorado active voters turnout was roughly 72% in the 2008 election. Colorado inactive voter turnout has ranged from 3-7% county by county in the subsequent elections. It's not a direct comparison, but it's what we have.

Why? Most inactives are gone or dead. It's silly to count them as equal with the actives.

Ok. Please go buy Romney on Intrade. Thanks.

Sure. In the meantime I would suggest you go to math class.

Well, you are of the opinion that 1/3rd of the Colorado electorate is either dead or has moved away. Not sure what sort of class you can go to in order to remedy that issue.

Nope, you might want to check reading class too.

For some reason, you have confused the statement 'most inactives are gone or dead' to 'all inactives are gone or dead', and calculated a figure based on that confusion.

It's quite amusing to see such from someone who claims to use a little logic.

Ah, the spin begins! How exactly do you define "most"? 50.1%?

[krazen1211]

Ah, the spin begins! How exactly do you define "most"? 50.1%?

I don't create definitions in the way you created your own set of mathematics. Thus, I use the following.


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/most

[Sbane]

What did you mean when you said most? Or did you just say something without thought? Wouldn't surprise me....

To think that even 16.6% of the electorate has died or moved away is ridiculous! And of course I doubt you were thinking that when you wrote your post.

[krazen1211]

What did you mean when you said most? Or did you just say something without thought? Wouldn't surprise me....

To think that even 16.6% of the electorate has died or moved away is ridiculous! And of course I doubt you were thinking that when you wrote your post.

I see now that you have graduated from faulty mathematics to sweeping conclusions of sheer nonsense based on that faulty mathematics.

I think about what I say. I am not like you. You ought to look up the number of Americans that move each year.

[Sbane]

What did you mean when you said most? Or did you just say something without thought? Wouldn't surprise me....

To think that even 16.6% of the electorate has died or moved away is ridiculous! And of course I doubt you were thinking that when you wrote your post.

I see now that you have graduated from faulty mathematics to sweeping conclusions of sheer nonsense based on that faulty mathematics.

I think about what I say. I am not like you. You ought to look up the number of Americans that move each year.

What number did you have in mind? It's a simple question.

And yes, people move but an even larger number only vote in presidential elections.

[krazen1211]

What did you mean when you said most? Or did you just say something without thought? Wouldn't surprise me....

To think that even 16.6% of the electorate has died or moved away is ridiculous! And of course I doubt you were thinking that when you wrote your post.

I see now that you have graduated from faulty mathematics to sweeping conclusions of sheer nonsense based on that faulty mathematics.

I think about what I say. I am not like you. You ought to look up the number of Americans that move each year.

What number did you have in mind? It's a simple question.

And yes, people move but an even larger number only vote in presidential elections.

I would surmise, that given that only 3-7% of those 1.161 million of those voters have been voting in the elections since 2008, at least 60% of those 1.161 million are either dead or not present at their 2008 registered voting address and have failed to update their registrations.

Those that seek to vote in the 2012 Presidential election will update their registration and become active voters again. Roughly 50k did so in August 2012.

[morgieb]

What happened to SurveyUSA's other polls?

[Tender Branson]

Campaigning with Hick could help Obama win CO:

http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_21553554/colorado-governors-approval-rating-at-almost-60-percent

Gov. John Hickenlooper Approval Rating:

58% Approve
24% Disapprove

Republicans approve 40-37.

[Tender Branson]

What happened to SurveyUSA's other polls?

6 of the 7 polls by them this week have been released. Only their Oregon poll is still out.

[Badger]

All right, let's use a little logic. Even using the active registration numbers there is only a R+2 advantage. If you use total registration, which is of course the logical thing to do, it evens up more or less. So why would there be a R+3 turnout? You guys do realize who the Republican nominee is, right? There won't be a groundswell for him, that's for sure. And while Democratic enthusiasm was low earlier in the year, things seem to have changed. I'm not saying they are more enthusiastic than Republicans, but the whole enthusiasm divide is a little overplayed. An even partisan turnout is pretty much what is likely to happen, considering that was the case even in 2010.

BTW guys could you please put your money where your mouth is and go on intrade and short sell Obama or buy Romney. I already think Obama is undervalued, but since there are a lot of people like you guys out there, I think prices could go even lower meaning more money for me.

http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/VoterRegNumbers/2012/August/VotersByPartyStatus.pdf

Active voter registration.

D: 739,778
R: 837,732
I: 728,794

D: 31.8%
R: 36%
I: 31.2%

Colorado active voters turnout was roughly 72% in the 2008 election. Colorado inactive voter turnout has ranged from 3-7% county by county in the subsequent elections. It's not a direct comparison, but it's what we have.

Why? Most inactives are gone or dead. It's silly to count them as equal with the actives.

Ok. Please go buy Romney on Intrade. Thanks.

Sure. In the meantime I would suggest you go to math class.

Well, you are of the opinion that 1/3rd of the Colorado electorate is either dead or has moved away. Not sure what sort of class you can go to in order to remedy that issue.

Nope, you might want to check reading class too.

And you, sir, should strongly consider charm school. Though you undoubtedly would be their 'Eliza Doolittle' project.

[memphis]

How are relations between the Colorado Springs nutters and the Utah nutters?

[Badger]

Denver Post was less Obama friendly in 2008. CO is one of the states Dems generally overperform on election day. Polls had 2008 at 4-6 points and Obama won by 9 while every 2010 poll had Bennet losing. Lean D

I think Colorado is more of a tossup than Ohio. Obama could very well win Obio by 5 points, and only win Colorado by 3. I don't totally buy into the "College Students and Hispanics Are Pushing Colorado Left" meme. It's happening, but not nearly as fast as some think it is.

Dems always outperform the polls in CO and NV and there's no reason to believe it won't happen this time. Also, the pot amendment is going to motivate young people so their turnout will probably be up.

Check out the crosstabs.  In a head-to-head match-up, Romney actually has a narrow lead in Colorado among voters aged 18-29.

http://www.denverpost.com/nationalpolitics/ci_21543908/denver-post-presidential-poll-results-coming-at-noon

And the president's lead among Hispanics is only 21 points.

So even assuming the whole "Latino/young people invasion" theory, they're actually moving towards the GOP compared to past years.  Even if you throw Johnson into the mix, Obama and Romney are still tied.

Peel beneath the surface, and you've got some ugly crosstabs for the president in Colorado.

You do realize that such unlikely results in the crosstabs is actually BAD news for Romney in that it shows the poll is quite likely flawed.

Of course, if you really want to bet on Intrade under the assumption romney will carry the under 30 vote and break 40-60 with Hispanics--numbers he'll have trouble matching in TX, let alone CO--hey, it's your money.

[ElectionAtlas]

New Poll: Colorado President by Survey USA on 2012-09-13

Summary: D: 45%, R: 44%, I: 3%, U: 8%

Poll Source URL: Full Poll Details

[greenforest32]

What happened to SurveyUSA's other polls?

6 of the 7 polls by them this week have been released. Only their Oregon poll is still out.

Is it still out? I was hoping they'd poll some of the ballot measures.

[Tender Branson]

What happened to SurveyUSA's other polls?

6 of the 7 polls by them this week have been released. Only their Oregon poll is still out.

Is it still out? I was hoping they'd poll some of the ballot measures.

Yeah, it is still not released even though they twittered last Monday that Oregon will be polled (in this last week).

http://twitter.com/surveyusa/status/245119145128108032

[J. J.]

I'm not too crazy about SurveyUSA.  I actually agree with Mondale about the Hispanic vote.